A common cause for node deaths is memory exhaustion. Sometimes this is due to some memory-eating monsterbug, but often the virtual address space of 2GB in a 32-bit process simply fills up with legitimate user data. No matter how much memory is installed on the machine, each process can only address 2GB of this.
In order to alleviate this and to buy us more room for growth, we have been working on porting the server binaries to the new x64 architecture and have them run as 64 bit processes under Windows 2003 server 64, or even XP 64.
Moving to this architecture should give us some other key benefits as well: The number of registers is now larger, which allows for better code optimization, and it uses the sse2 FP architecture exclusively which would mean better FP performance.
Having previously worked with 32/64 portable software in the unix world I was suprised at how relatively painless the switch seems to be going to be. Regular integral datatypes don't change at all, only such old chestnuts as size_t and ptrdiff_t grow to reflect the new address space.
The biggest hurdle so far has been the porting of the Stackless Python code to support x64. Windows has completely revamped the ABI (application binary interface) for the x64 platforms. Stack switching is assember stuff, and there is no inline-assembly support in the 64 bit compilers by design. MASM, microsoft's macro assembler has a new 64-bit brother, MASM64, but it is very poorly documented.
Still we have a running 64 bit stackless in debug mode now, although there are some issues in the optimized build to iron out yet.
To test all of this, we have put in orders for some 64 bit machines to put into our clusters. We are going to compare offerings from both Intel and AMD, single and dual core. We expect to be able to start test this seriously on Singularity in a few weeks time.
Comments
Chribba on 23 September 2005
hooray
hooray
SIlver Light on 23 September 2005
Wow, guess this gives me in incentive to upgrade windows if EVE is going to be optimised for 64 bit....
Wow, guess this gives me in incentive to upgrade windows if EVE is going to be optimised for 64 bit....
ElveeBee on 23 September 2005
Seems a good approach !
Seems a good approach !
bUBbLeS on 23 September 2005
dual core amd 4tw
dual core amd 4tw
Yith Solarius on 23 September 2005
Didn't understand a word of that, but its nice ccp are giving those in the comunity who know what thats all about some stats to munch on; gives a much more open feel to Eve
Didn't understand a word of that, but its nice ccp are giving those in the comunity who know what thats all about some stats to munch on; gives a much more open feel to Eve
Karnov Darkstar on 23 September 2005
techy blogs for the win! \o/
techy blogs for the win! \o/
RaistlinSOL on 23 September 2005
So a question came to mind while reading that..... Servers (nodes) have a chance of going 64bit, now the obvious question that arises is - will the client go 64bit, or will there be an offering of a 64bit client for those of us who are running top end systems? -Just a curious question...
So a question came to mind while reading that..... Servers (nodes) have a chance of going 64bit, now the obvious question that arises is - will the client go 64bit, or will there be an offering of a 64bit client for those of us who are running top end systems? -Just a curious question...
ophiuchus3000 on 23 September 2005
RaistlinSOL raises a good question. It would be good to see another company jump on the 64bit wagon.
RaistlinSOL raises a good question. It would be good to see another company jump on the 64bit wagon.
VeNT on 23 September 2005
looks like AMD dual core for the win! are you going to use the opteron (SKT 940) or Athlon (SKT 939) chips if you go AMD? are you using registered/EEC ram or what? I'd love more tech info on the cluster your running as I've got a few render farms etc under my belt and would love to see the kind of scale you guys work at!
looks like AMD dual core for the win! are you going to use the opteron (SKT 940) or Athlon (SKT 939) chips if you go AMD? are you using registered/EEC ram or what? I'd love more tech info on the cluster your running as I've got a few render farms etc under my belt and would love to see the kind of scale you guys work at!
Selthae on 23 September 2005
nice!!!
nice!!!
Discorporation on 23 September 2005
and in english? 0-o
and in english? 0-o
Vr'Sharr on 23 September 2005
@PB Great news, always good to see companies pushing technological limts. @Vent There are Opteron based dual core systems out there already from some suppliers. Opteron is server, Athlon is desktop... Oh and techy blogs fftw!! Will we get to see the benchmarks etc from these tests.... mmmmm benchmarks :D
@PB Great news, always good to see companies pushing technological limts. @Vent There are Opteron based dual core systems out there already from some suppliers. Opteron is server, Athlon is desktop... Oh and techy blogs fftw!! Will we get to see the benchmarks etc from these tests.... mmmmm benchmarks :D
Krle on 23 September 2005
Also signing for the 64bit version of the client. I have dual 6600 GT but it idles around waiting for CPU (a64 3200+) cause eve ALWAYS takes 100% (unless minimized)
Also signing for the 64bit version of the client. I have dual 6600 GT but it idles around waiting for CPU (a64 3200+) cause eve ALWAYS takes 100% (unless minimized)
Andrue on 23 September 2005
Fun! We went through this years ago from 16-bit to 32 and like you found that it was fairly painless. In our case we write file system code but have always avoided 'int' for external data structures. We'll soon be having to extend our I/O to 64 bit addressing. 2TB is no longer rare. Ho hum - keeps us in work :)
Fun! We went through this years ago from 16-bit to 32 and like you found that it was fairly painless. In our case we write file system code but have always avoided 'int' for external data structures. We'll soon be having to extend our I/O to 64 bit addressing. 2TB is no longer rare. Ho hum - keeps us in work :)
wismerhil on 23 September 2005
opteron desktop :) 4 clients at the same time :)
opteron desktop :) 4 clients at the same time :)
MaiLina KaTar on 23 September 2005
64 bit is cool... it's like... more than 32 'n stuff.
64 bit is cool... it's like... more than 32 'n stuff.
hired goon on 23 September 2005
Buying a load of machines just for testing? I wonder who gets the leftovers! :D
Buying a load of machines just for testing? I wonder who gets the leftovers! :D
Cranium Jack on 23 September 2005
WTS: 50 * 32bit Servers going cheap WTB: 50 * 64Bit Servers (cheap)
WTS: 50 * 32bit Servers going cheap WTB: 50 * 64Bit Servers (cheap)
sidthesexist on 23 September 2005
amd for teh win intel suck 8(
amd for teh win intel suck 8(
Kazender on 23 September 2005
ooo tech info ... dr00l
ooo tech info ... dr00l
henryshead on 23 September 2005
Would the /3GB switch help up the 2GB limit? http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ddtools/hh/ddtools/BootIni_de16d3ec-c437-4628-805f-8945ea598a92.xml.asp
Would the /3GB switch help up the 2GB limit? http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ddtools/hh/ddtools/BootIni_de16d3ec-c437-4628-805f-8945ea598a92.xml.asp
Avon on 23 September 2005
I run a 64bit AMD at home (3400+) on x64 ... however, I would be tempted to go Intel for a mission critical server. That is just from my experience using windows server products. If your cluster was 'NIX not Windows, I would probably go AMD. Dual core processors are a big advantage if cost is a primary concern, but they do not have a performance equal to two seperate processors.
I run a 64bit AMD at home (3400+) on x64 ... however, I would be tempted to go Intel for a mission critical server. That is just from my experience using windows server products. If your cluster was 'NIX not Windows, I would probably go AMD. Dual core processors are a big advantage if cost is a primary concern, but they do not have a performance equal to two seperate processors.
Noveron on 23 September 2005
Errr.. why Windows 2003? Dont you think you would get better performance with BSD or Linux?
Errr.. why Windows 2003? Dont you think you would get better performance with BSD or Linux?
ivar R'dhak on 23 September 2005
So, uhm. What took you so long? 64 bit isn´t that brandnew a technology. Did it take so long for all the software to become usable or was it just another shiat-hits-fan-entering-megafixmode? Anyhoo, goodluck on the switch and bring back the Character Page soon. ;)
So, uhm. What took you so long? 64 bit isn´t that brandnew a technology. Did it take so long for all the software to become usable or was it just another shiat-hits-fan-entering-megafixmode? Anyhoo, goodluck on the switch and bring back the Character Page soon. ;)
Clonebabe on 23 September 2005
errrr wtf did all that mean in plain english, sounds mighty cool and techy impressive tho :)
errrr wtf did all that mean in plain english, sounds mighty cool and techy impressive tho :)
porkbelly on 23 September 2005
Thanks for your comments people. Let me address some of your points:
A 64 bit client is certainly something to think about. However, the client is always a much more sensitive technology to modify, because we don't have any control over the user's setup. Also, DirectX has to stabilise and various 3rd party libraries to grow up. Then there are infrastructure concerns and so on. We have more pressing client concerns, such as Vista compatibility :)
As for what hardware gets selected, we still feel we need to get our hands on it and do some comparisons.
BSD/Linux: I don't think this matters for performance. Performance is not limited by operating system tasks such as context switching and network activity. And anyway, we are so far down the line since we committed to the win32 api that going back is not an option.
We are aware of the /3Gb switch and indeed use it on our SQL server. But it is basically a hack and at most a stopgap solution.
No, 64bit isn't that new, but a stable 64 bit windows platform is, and the corresponding development tools and 3rd party libraries. And let's not get into Itanium.
Cheers.
Thanks for your comments people. Let me address some of your points:
A 64 bit client is certainly something to think about. However, the client is always a much more sensitive technology to modify, because we don't have any control over the user's setup. Also, DirectX has to stabilise and various 3rd party libraries to grow up. Then there are infrastructure concerns and so on. We have more pressing client concerns, such as Vista compatibility :)
As for what hardware gets selected, we still feel we need to get our hands on it and do some comparisons.
BSD/Linux: I don't think this matters for performance. Performance is not limited by operating system tasks such as context switching and network activity. And anyway, we are so far down the line since we committed to the win32 api that going back is not an option.
We are aware of the /3Gb switch and indeed use it on our SQL server. But it is basically a hack and at most a stopgap solution.
No, 64bit isn't that new, but a stable 64 bit windows platform is, and the corresponding development tools and 3rd party libraries. And let's not get into Itanium.
Cheers.
Gunstar Zero on 23 September 2005
new toys!
new toys!
Ralitge boyter on 23 September 2005
Cool... 64Bit isn't new it is however just getting a decent form of support from M$ since EVE is M$ based well guess what not before M$ supports it will the switch be made.
Cool... 64Bit isn't new it is however just getting a decent form of support from M$ since EVE is M$ based well guess what not before M$ supports it will the switch be made.
ivar R'dhak on 23 September 2005
In plain English: EvE is running on a bunch of old 32 bit machines(like yours) which created lag and nodedeaths. Finally we will move to better hardware and it seems to be easier than anticipated. I know it´s a bit exagerated but I think it basically boils down to this. As always please correct me if I´m wrong.
In plain English: EvE is running on a bunch of old 32 bit machines(like yours) which created lag and nodedeaths. Finally we will move to better hardware and it seems to be easier than anticipated. I know it´s a bit exagerated but I think it basically boils down to this. As always please correct me if I´m wrong.
ivar R'dhak on 23 September 2005
Whoa thnx for the info porkbelly. Wasn´t there when I wrote the answer to Clonebabe.
Whoa thnx for the info porkbelly. Wasn´t there when I wrote the answer to Clonebabe.
BH Sharkbait on 23 September 2005
Amd's already run very hot. i would think dual core amd are a pain to keep cool. Xeons are probably 1 of the best processors. can run at higher temps than p4's and amd's. might be an idea to wait til they are released :)
Amd's already run very hot. i would think dual core amd are a pain to keep cool. Xeons are probably 1 of the best processors. can run at higher temps than p4's and amd's. might be an idea to wait til they are released :)
Xavier Linx on 23 September 2005
64 bits is a workaround, not a solution. The problems are scalability and reliability both at OS level and program level. Win64 is still an unreliable beta. Why not use something that solves the problem instead? There ARE tried and tested solutions afterall.
64 bits is a workaround, not a solution. The problems are scalability and reliability both at OS level and program level. Win64 is still an unreliable beta. Why not use something that solves the problem instead? There ARE tried and tested solutions afterall.
Xrak on 23 September 2005
AMD's dont run hot at all. P4's are the room heaters. Opterons/X2's 4tw!
AMD's dont run hot at all. P4's are the room heaters. Opterons/X2's 4tw!
Karash Amerius on 23 September 2005
Will the client run well on a 64 bit proc or even be moved to a 64 bit application? That would be sweet if so. :)
Will the client run well on a 64 bit proc or even be moved to a 64 bit application? That would be sweet if so. :)
Ticondrius on 23 September 2005
Opterons are excellent, because they eliminate the bottleneck of the memory bus by moving the memory controller onto the CPU, enabling the CPU to communicate with RAM at the speed of it's internal clock. Intel still uses a northbridge in their chipset designs...and they maxout their memory bus at 1066Mhz for the moment. Also, the Opterons run cooler, and consume less power than the Itaniums...not to mention they cost a hell of a lot less.
Opterons are excellent, because they eliminate the bottleneck of the memory bus by moving the memory controller onto the CPU, enabling the CPU to communicate with RAM at the speed of it's internal clock. Intel still uses a northbridge in their chipset designs...and they maxout their memory bus at 1066Mhz for the moment. Also, the Opterons run cooler, and consume less power than the Itaniums...not to mention they cost a hell of a lot less.
Praetor Novak on 23 September 2005
Excellent Information, thank you! (can you add a net cam to the server room, so we can see the smoke when a node goes *poof?) Now the real question for us players: Will the Eve client run on Windows XP Professional x64 as a 32-bit app in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) subsystem?
Excellent Information, thank you! (can you add a net cam to the server room, so we can see the smoke when a node goes *poof?) Now the real question for us players: Will the Eve client run on Windows XP Professional x64 as a 32-bit app in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) subsystem?
Elrathias on 23 September 2005
yay! amd 64 with 2 cores *drool*.
yay! amd 64 with 2 cores *drool*.
iNs4ne on 23 September 2005
Vista compatibility? Sorry for the offtopic but how about working closely with the wine/cedega guys for some linux compatibility? that would please a thousand or 2 :D Anyway, best wishes for a smooth transition!
Vista compatibility? Sorry for the offtopic but how about working closely with the wine/cedega guys for some linux compatibility? that would please a thousand or 2 :D Anyway, best wishes for a smooth transition!
Praetor Novak on 23 September 2005
I'm thinking Dual Dualcores, Tyan has the board: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8se.html To clarify: Will the current EVE client run on WOW64?
I'm thinking Dual Dualcores, Tyan has the board: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderk8se.html To clarify: Will the current EVE client run on WOW64?
mByte on 23 September 2005
I'm also curious why you use win2k3 as a target platform for 64bit, when many stable 64bit linux distributions exist. Especially if most of your stuff is written in phython, which has superb support under *nix ...
I'm also curious why you use win2k3 as a target platform for 64bit, when many stable 64bit linux distributions exist. Especially if most of your stuff is written in phython, which has superb support under *nix ...
Spy4Hire on 23 September 2005
"...MASM, microsoft's macro assembler has a new 64-bit brother..." I thought macros were against EvE AUP?
"...MASM, microsoft's macro assembler has a new 64-bit brother..." I thought macros were against EvE AUP?
Evelyne DeBoissiere on 23 September 2005
As far as 64bit goes, forget the Itanium, and as far as x86-64 goes, forget Intel ! Not only is the AMD x86-64 implementation more mature, but the Opteron processor runs cooler than Intel's offering, while performing better. And that's just single-core ;) Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing the upgrades, and hope that they go smoothly ! Extra performance would be more than welcome with the increase in playerbase and consequent problems :(
As far as 64bit goes, forget the Itanium, and as far as x86-64 goes, forget Intel ! Not only is the AMD x86-64 implementation more mature, but the Opteron processor runs cooler than Intel's offering, while performing better. And that's just single-core ;) Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing the upgrades, and hope that they go smoothly ! Extra performance would be more than welcome with the increase in playerbase and consequent problems :(
Mesiah Scuro on 23 September 2005
*nod slowly* I didn't understand a damn word of that, but go you! Have a cookie.
*nod slowly* I didn't understand a damn word of that, but go you! Have a cookie.
Taketa De on 23 September 2005
That reminds me: Sun just brough out new multi processor Dual core Opteron servers and they even support Windows 2003. For x86-64 personally go with Opterons. 1. AMD were the ones that developed the instuctrion set and Intel were the ones "forced " to follow and copy it. 2. The memory interface of the AMD64 is superior to Intels current offering. Intels dual cores can only communciate as fast (between the same cores) as they could if there were 2 seperate processors. AMD's HT technology on the other hand allows for a much quicker and more solid solution. I think intel is coming up with something similar in the future, but for the current generation I find Intels solution inferior. 3. The on processor memory controller Opterons have is really good getting low latency to the memory. For an application like the Eve clusters I'd imagine that is a good feature to have. Before the Athlon I'd have recommened Intel in any case, but since then things have really changed and right now AMD tends to be my porcessor of choice (for clients and servers).
That reminds me: Sun just brough out new multi processor Dual core Opteron servers and they even support Windows 2003. For x86-64 personally go with Opterons. 1. AMD were the ones that developed the instuctrion set and Intel were the ones "forced " to follow and copy it. 2. The memory interface of the AMD64 is superior to Intels current offering. Intels dual cores can only communciate as fast (between the same cores) as they could if there were 2 seperate processors. AMD's HT technology on the other hand allows for a much quicker and more solid solution. I think intel is coming up with something similar in the future, but for the current generation I find Intels solution inferior. 3. The on processor memory controller Opterons have is really good getting low latency to the memory. For an application like the Eve clusters I'd imagine that is a good feature to have. Before the Athlon I'd have recommened Intel in any case, but since then things have really changed and right now AMD tends to be my porcessor of choice (for clients and servers).
Verone on 23 September 2005
I have no idea what the hell any of that means... but w00t! \o/
I have no idea what the hell any of that means... but w00t! \o/
Drilla on 23 September 2005
SUNs Opteron based severs are inexpensive and very reliable. I highly recommend them.
SUNs Opteron based severs are inexpensive and very reliable. I highly recommend them.
Zaintiraris on 23 September 2005
I have no idea what he said! Whaaaa!
I have no idea what he said! Whaaaa!
Intar Domi on 23 September 2005
sun v20z, or better v40z, with freebsd or some serious unices, like tru64 would be a better solution. you will never make a goodperformance appliaction for windows. never ever. guys, join the real world, and learn how to make programs for real OSes...
sun v20z, or better v40z, with freebsd or some serious unices, like tru64 would be a better solution. you will never make a goodperformance appliaction for windows. never ever. guys, join the real world, and learn how to make programs for real OSes...
Imhotep Khem on 23 September 2005
Curious. Is Eve built on top of a scalable software platform? Adding new machines to the mix does not seem to be helping much. Now you are going for stronger individual machines. I would have expected to just add a host of new 32bit machines and divide the load. But the load can't be divided?
Curious. Is Eve built on top of a scalable software platform? Adding new machines to the mix does not seem to be helping much. Now you are going for stronger individual machines. I would have expected to just add a host of new 32bit machines and divide the load. But the load can't be divided?
Phantom Doc on 24 September 2005
Thanks for the update. No linux servers?
Thanks for the update. No linux servers?
Praetor Novak on 24 September 2005
Is anyone reading what porkbelly responded concerning Win32 vs Unix/linux/BSD? "And anyway, we are so far down the line since we committed to the win32 api that going back is not an option." -porkbelly 2005.09.23 14:05:39 My one question is this: Has anyone tested the CURRENT EVE client (3582) on Windows XP Professional x64 as a 32-bit app in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) subsystem running on a Dual-core AMD Opteron?
Is anyone reading what porkbelly responded concerning Win32 vs Unix/linux/BSD? "And anyway, we are so far down the line since we committed to the win32 api that going back is not an option." -porkbelly 2005.09.23 14:05:39 My one question is this: Has anyone tested the CURRENT EVE client (3582) on Windows XP Professional x64 as a 32-bit app in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) subsystem running on a Dual-core AMD Opteron?
Baraak Tizhaan on 24 September 2005
I must admit that I'm very surprised that they run their SQL server on a Windows system. For the numbers involved I wouldn't even go in that direction, but would instead run it from a commercial mainframe such as HP3000/9000, IBM AS400. These machines have been 64 bit for decades and are designed purely for handling vast amounts of data, with no OS overheads.
I must admit that I'm very surprised that they run their SQL server on a Windows system. For the numbers involved I wouldn't even go in that direction, but would instead run it from a commercial mainframe such as HP3000/9000, IBM AS400. These machines have been 64 bit for decades and are designed purely for handling vast amounts of data, with no OS overheads.
Swedish Bob on 24 September 2005
I've been looking at getting some Sun x2100's. Might work well for you as well since you will probably be getting racks of them. From a reseller you could probably get them at about 400-500 each. They hold up to 4G ram and can use single or dual core opteron procs. For its speed about the only thing cheaper would be to build your own white boxes. Runs win64,Rhel,Solaris 10.
I've been looking at getting some Sun x2100's. Might work well for you as well since you will probably be getting racks of them. From a reseller you could probably get them at about 400-500 each. They hold up to 4G ram and can use single or dual core opteron procs. For its speed about the only thing cheaper would be to build your own white boxes. Runs win64,Rhel,Solaris 10.
Deric on 24 September 2005
Baraak Tizhaaan: EVE is a 3 tier system. The SQL server may or may not be running on windows, I don't know, but what's actually being said is that EVE nodes, which handle actual gameplay functions are on windows. Much of the basic proces has already been detailed for us, but what's important to this discussion is that, while chat/market/escrow and so forth can be farmed out to other nodes to reduce lag in a busy system, this bears emphasis: CCP has said that ships in space in a single system cannot be split between nodes it's pretty clear why not if you think about it, interpreocess communication would only bog things down at that level.
Baraak Tizhaaan: EVE is a 3 tier system. The SQL server may or may not be running on windows, I don't know, but what's actually being said is that EVE nodes, which handle actual gameplay functions are on windows. Much of the basic proces has already been detailed for us, but what's important to this discussion is that, while chat/market/escrow and so forth can be farmed out to other nodes to reduce lag in a busy system, this bears emphasis: CCP has said that ships in space in a single system cannot be split between nodes it's pretty clear why not if you think about it, interpreocess communication would only bog things down at that level.
Deric on 24 September 2005
Also Baraak: AS400? 1) you're giving away your age 2) it's highly inadvisable that any company BEGIN work with AS400s see 1) and retirement ages. Also AS400 does *NOT* play well with modern technologies, why bother with complex bridges if they're not buying you anything?
Also Baraak: AS400? 1) you're giving away your age 2) it's highly inadvisable that any company BEGIN work with AS400s see 1) and retirement ages. Also AS400 does *NOT* play well with modern technologies, why bother with complex bridges if they're not buying you anything?
Malarkey on 24 September 2005
I just love it when geeks talk dirty!
I just love it when geeks talk dirty!
jatkot on 24 September 2005
I cant wait for teh 64-bit version on the client
I cant wait for teh 64-bit version on the client
Taketa De on 24 September 2005
The choice as to which OS to use should lie in what expertiese are available in the company. CCP is good with windows so it would be stupid to use anything else. The advantage you _might_ gain by using Unix/Linux, which would probably not be that large, would be more then offset by the negative of not being an expert on the platform. Anyway, I think one of the best things they could do (would probably take a good bit of work and some nice coding magic) is to be able to move systems between nodes on the fly while people are playing in them. That would allow a much more dynamic, on demand load balancing which will probably become more and more important as more people play the game.
The choice as to which OS to use should lie in what expertiese are available in the company. CCP is good with windows so it would be stupid to use anything else. The advantage you _might_ gain by using Unix/Linux, which would probably not be that large, would be more then offset by the negative of not being an expert on the platform. Anyway, I think one of the best things they could do (would probably take a good bit of work and some nice coding magic) is to be able to move systems between nodes on the fly while people are playing in them. That would allow a much more dynamic, on demand load balancing which will probably become more and more important as more people play the game.
Pew Pew on 24 September 2005
Instead if selecting hardware I'd select (hardware's) features. You should take a look at Teradata SQL servers.
Instead if selecting hardware I'd select (hardware's) features. You should take a look at Teradata SQL servers.
Adam Coyle on 24 September 2005
Its great to see that even the game industry are looking into Windows x64. I work with a company that are also looking into a transition to Windows x64. Our solution are today on Windows Server 2003 so going for Windows Server x64 is a natual selection to minimize recoding our software. We will also make the transition to SQL Server 2005 in a majority set cluster for the backbone in November/December. On our front end we are looking into using dualcore AMD with dual CPU blades that are load balanced. In the middle tear we are looking into using dualcore AMD with four CPU in a cluster. For the third tear we will use dualcore AMD with eight CPUs in majority set cluster. All with Windows Server 2003 x64. When VMware ESX Server is released supporting Windows x64 guest OS this will change how we will build our solutions though. Since VMware are rebalancing the resources on the fly we will most likely switch to have all our front end servers in VMware instead. I hope your transition into Windows x64 and SQL Server 2005 goes as great as ours currently do.
Its great to see that even the game industry are looking into Windows x64. I work with a company that are also looking into a transition to Windows x64. Our solution are today on Windows Server 2003 so going for Windows Server x64 is a natual selection to minimize recoding our software. We will also make the transition to SQL Server 2005 in a majority set cluster for the backbone in November/December. On our front end we are looking into using dualcore AMD with dual CPU blades that are load balanced. In the middle tear we are looking into using dualcore AMD with four CPU in a cluster. For the third tear we will use dualcore AMD with eight CPUs in majority set cluster. All with Windows Server 2003 x64. When VMware ESX Server is released supporting Windows x64 guest OS this will change how we will build our solutions though. Since VMware are rebalancing the resources on the fly we will most likely switch to have all our front end servers in VMware instead. I hope your transition into Windows x64 and SQL Server 2005 goes as great as ours currently do.
Adam Coyle on 24 September 2005
Why we have not done this already at our company you might ask. Since third party software like antivirus and backup software are not currently mature on Windows x64 we have to wait for them. Same with hardware drivers, they need to get some age and be more optimized to get the true performance increase in switching to Windows x64.
Why we have not done this already at our company you might ask. Since third party software like antivirus and backup software are not currently mature on Windows x64 we have to wait for them. Same with hardware drivers, they need to get some age and be more optimized to get the true performance increase in switching to Windows x64.
Gneiss Breaker on 24 September 2005
Oh yeah, check out the new Sun Operton boxes. Racked, dirt cheap, full LOM, way cool.
Oh yeah, check out the new Sun Operton boxes. Racked, dirt cheap, full LOM, way cool.
Lindan on 25 September 2005
best thing i ever heard in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong(x99999999999) time. EvE-Online64 Woot
best thing i ever heard in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong(x99999999999) time. EvE-Online64 Woot
Doc Punkiller on 25 September 2005
Stuck with microsoft how sad... Worst position to be. Ever. Extended downtime spotted !
Stuck with microsoft how sad... Worst position to be. Ever. Extended downtime spotted !
DarkStar251 on 25 September 2005
For the strangely misguided BH that says AMDs run hot: The standard dual core 800 series Opteron (for 4 or 8 way SMP, with 8 or 16 logical cores, has a TDP of 95 watts, including the integrated memory controller. There are further low power opterons at 55w and 30w. The EMT64 Xeon has a TDP of 111 watts, and you also need to allocate 22w or so for the external memory controller. The Itainium 2 has a TDP of 130 Watts, again another 22w or so for the memory controller. The AMD offering runs alot cooler, is alot cheaper, and alot more backwards compatible. There are some killer 4 way boards with up to 64GB ram support, and Iwill are in the process of releasing a highly modular 8-way board with support for 128GB of ram and 40 lanes of PCI-E with 2 64bit 133mhz PCI-X slots. £ for £, the Opteron path is far cheaper for similar performance, and unlike the P4 Netburst based Xeon, is much more efficient in terms of heat and power consumption. The opteron is currently making huge inroads into the server market, traditionally dominated by Intel, and its integrated memory controller gives extremely low latencies and helps it perform very well in memory intensive operations such as Database servers.
For the strangely misguided BH that says AMDs run hot: The standard dual core 800 series Opteron (for 4 or 8 way SMP, with 8 or 16 logical cores, has a TDP of 95 watts, including the integrated memory controller. There are further low power opterons at 55w and 30w. The EMT64 Xeon has a TDP of 111 watts, and you also need to allocate 22w or so for the external memory controller. The Itainium 2 has a TDP of 130 Watts, again another 22w or so for the memory controller. The AMD offering runs alot cooler, is alot cheaper, and alot more backwards compatible. There are some killer 4 way boards with up to 64GB ram support, and Iwill are in the process of releasing a highly modular 8-way board with support for 128GB of ram and 40 lanes of PCI-E with 2 64bit 133mhz PCI-X slots. £ for £, the Opteron path is far cheaper for similar performance, and unlike the P4 Netburst based Xeon, is much more efficient in terms of heat and power consumption. The opteron is currently making huge inroads into the server market, traditionally dominated by Intel, and its integrated memory controller gives extremely low latencies and helps it perform very well in memory intensive operations such as Database servers.
craptacular on 25 September 2005
> Stack switching is assember stuff, and there is no inline-assembly support in the 64 bit compilers by design. a) what are intrinsics then? (supported by ICC, GCC, MSVC... you name it) b) MSVC's inline asm has always been borked and retarded (ie see the lack of proper call convention/register allocation, naked function anyone?) Compiler support is there, and has been there for ages. Now, the real trick is to pick the right compiler. So far GCC 4.x is the king of the hill for 64bit/SSE code gen. Surprising eh?
> Stack switching is assember stuff, and there is no inline-assembly support in the 64 bit compilers by design. a) what are intrinsics then? (supported by ICC, GCC, MSVC... you name it) b) MSVC's inline asm has always been borked and retarded (ie see the lack of proper call convention/register allocation, naked function anyone?) Compiler support is there, and has been there for ages. Now, the real trick is to pick the right compiler. So far GCC 4.x is the king of the hill for 64bit/SSE code gen. Surprising eh?
LWMaverick on 25 September 2005
Nice idea by upgrading... but using WINTENDO !??! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Nice idea by upgrading... but using WINTENDO !??! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Jacque Sparrow on 25 September 2005
There are actually 2 ways to solve this problem - the easiest of which might be to convert to 64 bit however one could also solve this problem by packing 4 GB into a 32 bit computer and then architect 2 processes that each use 2 GB and achieve the same effect as recoding to use 64 bits without the risk of possibly having to debug a lot of legacy code. If one wanted to remain 32 bit to avoid the risks of debugging legacy 32 bit code when moving to 64 bits one might architect an Object server using RPC that would simply exist to house tons of Objects each of which would encapsulate behaviors and communicate with the game server code using a simply yet elegant RPC technique. In this same fashion one could expand the existing 32 bit code to include many Object Servers for each physical server as-needed all without having to reinvest in 64 bit computers, etc. In all fairness, I am all for the idea of moving to 64 bit whenever possible because 64 bit computers running 64 bit code would scream and thus produce less lag. I am also all for expanding 32 bit code to allow for some unique architectures one might not consider otherwise. Just my 2 cents.
There are actually 2 ways to solve this problem - the easiest of which might be to convert to 64 bit however one could also solve this problem by packing 4 GB into a 32 bit computer and then architect 2 processes that each use 2 GB and achieve the same effect as recoding to use 64 bits without the risk of possibly having to debug a lot of legacy code. If one wanted to remain 32 bit to avoid the risks of debugging legacy 32 bit code when moving to 64 bits one might architect an Object server using RPC that would simply exist to house tons of Objects each of which would encapsulate behaviors and communicate with the game server code using a simply yet elegant RPC technique. In this same fashion one could expand the existing 32 bit code to include many Object Servers for each physical server as-needed all without having to reinvest in 64 bit computers, etc. In all fairness, I am all for the idea of moving to 64 bit whenever possible because 64 bit computers running 64 bit code would scream and thus produce less lag. I am also all for expanding 32 bit code to allow for some unique architectures one might not consider otherwise. Just my 2 cents.
NykO87 on 25 September 2005
Talk about a run-on sentence, breath jacq. Anyway imo it seems like things are headed in the 64 bit direction anyway. Why not start now and not regret it later :)
Talk about a run-on sentence, breath jacq. Anyway imo it seems like things are headed in the 64 bit direction anyway. Why not start now and not regret it later :)
Exaali Vendraxxil on 26 September 2005
http://www.sun.com/nc/05q3/products/x4100.jsp (no I don't work for Sun)
http://www.sun.com/nc/05q3/products/x4100.jsp (no I don't work for Sun)
Clowdancer on 26 September 2005
what i would like to see is eve client working on XP64e, currently it shows only black screen
what i would like to see is eve client working on XP64e, currently it shows only black screen
Apoll on 26 September 2005
Fix that damn problem with EVE's Python and settings. We need 2 Windows installations to have EVE and real Python under Windows. Now you do the modifications, a bit of *nix frendly client should be a way to go too. And I know that we cannot change your mind about CPU's, just opinion from someone who write x64 applications for Solaris. AMD 4TW. Intel is a nightmare.
Fix that damn problem with EVE's Python and settings. We need 2 Windows installations to have EVE and real Python under Windows. Now you do the modifications, a bit of *nix frendly client should be a way to go too. And I know that we cannot change your mind about CPU's, just opinion from someone who write x64 applications for Solaris. AMD 4TW. Intel is a nightmare.
Decilius on 26 September 2005
Wintel forever :D Mwahahaha
Wintel forever :D Mwahahaha
ivar R'dhak on 26 September 2005
We´ll see who will be laughing when the Devils child Longhorn and it´s godforsaken DirectX bastard Vista is trying to grip us all by the balls. Repent children, for the end is near! Rwaaah. ;)
We´ll see who will be laughing when the Devils child Longhorn and it´s godforsaken DirectX bastard Vista is trying to grip us all by the balls. Repent children, for the end is near! Rwaaah. ;)
HighlanderUK on 27 September 2005
AMD dual core Opterons all the way guys!!!!! Don't give into the Dark side (Intel)
AMD dual core Opterons all the way guys!!!!! Don't give into the Dark side (Intel)
Hawk Firestorm on 27 September 2005
Yes dynamic load balancing ftw or dedicated 'floater' servers that pitch in to help with high load areas when the need arrises.
Yes dynamic load balancing ftw or dedicated 'floater' servers that pitch in to help with high load areas when the need arrises.
Hawk Firestorm on 27 September 2005
Other question is if we get all the above will we ever loose those annoyin finding a bush msg, please wait 90mins to change ship etc. heh?
Other question is if we get all the above will we ever loose those annoyin finding a bush msg, please wait 90mins to change ship etc. heh?
Kalaman on 27 September 2005
What I love is the herds of nerds that flock to these threads and shoot off like they know the answer to everything. Being a server performance engineer for (insert name of larger server vendor here) ... There is no way to know what architecture is the best for EVE without an intimate knowledge of the workloads it is placing on the system. In some cases the hypertransport architecture of the AMD can actually be it's Achillies heel where in others it's greatest asset. That said ... CCP <-- I am glad to see that you are tackling the challenge of moving EVE to new platforms instead of following the industry by sunsetting the game and coming out with a sequel. It has brought me hours of entertainment and I look forward to many more as you improve upon what is already a major success. Keep up the great work!
What I love is the herds of nerds that flock to these threads and shoot off like they know the answer to everything. Being a server performance engineer for (insert name of larger server vendor here) ... There is no way to know what architecture is the best for EVE without an intimate knowledge of the workloads it is placing on the system. In some cases the hypertransport architecture of the AMD can actually be it's Achillies heel where in others it's greatest asset. That said ... CCP <-- I am glad to see that you are tackling the challenge of moving EVE to new platforms instead of following the industry by sunsetting the game and coming out with a sequel. It has brought me hours of entertainment and I look forward to many more as you improve upon what is already a major success. Keep up the great work!
Dhejay Centrix on 27 September 2005
EVE64 4tw!!!!!!!!!!
EVE64 4tw!!!!!!!!!!
Ztone Harvestor on 27 September 2005
It's good that you're doing something about it. I realise the server software is being optimized for x64, but what about the client? Any optimizations for sse2/sse3 athlon 64's?
It's good that you're doing something about it. I realise the server software is being optimized for x64, but what about the client? Any optimizations for sse2/sse3 athlon 64's?
Olleg on 27 September 2005
Your servers work in Windows. Why? Change OS to something better. And processors to Opteron.
Your servers work in Windows. Why? Change OS to something better. And processors to Opteron.
Chriss Almighty on 27 September 2005
Because Windows RULEZ. I was managing Linux server, now I'm on Win2k3 server and I love it. It's all a matter of knowledge and proper configuration. x64 - GO FOR IT :) P.S. Running AMD Athlon64 here...
Because Windows RULEZ. I was managing Linux server, now I'm on Win2k3 server and I love it. It's all a matter of knowledge and proper configuration. x64 - GO FOR IT :) P.S. Running AMD Athlon64 here...
Mitram on 28 September 2005
Who writes server code in 32bit these days? I don't know how many nodes there are and how many users they manage but 2G should be ok with a disk based database in the background. Caching doesn't help anyway since every user requests just the data that were not yet cached. Maybe storing individual data in a compact format will help a lot too. I hope you don't allocate each string by its own. There you can waste like 30% of memory alone (and about 30% in speed too). According to Posix malloc always allocates at least 32 bytes you can use pluse management overhead. Instead of porting to 64bit it might be wise to reduce the memory requirement since this will greatly reduce the CPU usage too.
Who writes server code in 32bit these days? I don't know how many nodes there are and how many users they manage but 2G should be ok with a disk based database in the background. Caching doesn't help anyway since every user requests just the data that were not yet cached. Maybe storing individual data in a compact format will help a lot too. I hope you don't allocate each string by its own. There you can waste like 30% of memory alone (and about 30% in speed too). According to Posix malloc always allocates at least 32 bytes you can use pluse management overhead. Instead of porting to 64bit it might be wise to reduce the memory requirement since this will greatly reduce the CPU usage too.
Scetrov on 28 September 2005
Woah... nice. 64bit computing is the way forward personaly I would go for Win 2K3 Server as your platform... because thats what it's built for.. servers.
Woah... nice. 64bit computing is the way forward personaly I would go for Win 2K3 Server as your platform... because thats what it's built for.. servers.
DeODokktor on 28 September 2005
Can I have the old servers when ur done.. :P
Can I have the old servers when ur done.. :P
Zarek Osmabruck on 28 September 2005
SIGNING FOR A 64-BIT VERSION OF CLIENT. I have ATI X850 XT but it idles around waiting for CPU AMD64 4800+ DUAL CORE because the Eve-Client ALWAYS takes 100% of the Processor as its a native 32 bit program.
SIGNING FOR A 64-BIT VERSION OF CLIENT. I have ATI X850 XT but it idles around waiting for CPU AMD64 4800+ DUAL CORE because the Eve-Client ALWAYS takes 100% of the Processor as its a native 32 bit program.
ErrorS on 30 September 2005
yay for AMD
yay for AMD
Construction Alt on 01 October 2005
Another call for an x64 client here too!! :o) Great that the servers are being migrated though - we should see a huge increase in speed on the server side... unfortunately, the client on XPx64 poodles along compared to an equivilent XP-32 machine, due, as Zarek says, to it having to translate. I have only got an Athlon 3000+ and an AMD x700, but I think the xt64 client will make a big difference. Driver-wise, the x64 is coming of age - AMD and nVidia have both got their act together now and (I think) are up to speed, the only ones who seem to be lagging are some printer manufacturers, the monitor manufacturers (hardly critical) and (ironically) microsoft itself... although I think most of its hardware works, it may not do so as well... so the time is coming when an x64 version will be wise. :o) Nice going guys... good to see that you're moving with the times!
Another call for an x64 client here too!! :o) Great that the servers are being migrated though - we should see a huge increase in speed on the server side... unfortunately, the client on XPx64 poodles along compared to an equivilent XP-32 machine, due, as Zarek says, to it having to translate. I have only got an Athlon 3000+ and an AMD x700, but I think the xt64 client will make a big difference. Driver-wise, the x64 is coming of age - AMD and nVidia have both got their act together now and (I think) are up to speed, the only ones who seem to be lagging are some printer manufacturers, the monitor manufacturers (hardly critical) and (ironically) microsoft itself... although I think most of its hardware works, it may not do so as well... so the time is coming when an x64 version will be wise. :o) Nice going guys... good to see that you're moving with the times!
Kahvine on 03 October 2005
I've been doing parallel hardware (starting with Thinking Machines CM-5s, nCubes, IBM SP2s, etc.) and databases for about 12 years. There is a LOT of misinformation in these comments...Teradata? For an APPLICATION server? Oy vey. I'd advise CCP to run, not walk, to AnandTech.com and find: a) their recent SQL 64-bit benchmark series on AMD Opterons vs. Xeons. There IS apparently a problem with scaleablity in the EMT64 instruction set that Intel uses and/or their memory controller...and the performance in 64 bit mode shows that. Happened regardless of database (SQLServer and MySQL) tested with. b) Check out their review of the latest Sun Opteron servers. I'm in the middle of building a large grid server for a client, and if they weren't HP's largest customer, I'd be switching them to Sun right now...(hard to beat their current discounts though).
I've been doing parallel hardware (starting with Thinking Machines CM-5s, nCubes, IBM SP2s, etc.) and databases for about 12 years. There is a LOT of misinformation in these comments...Teradata? For an APPLICATION server? Oy vey. I'd advise CCP to run, not walk, to AnandTech.com and find: a) their recent SQL 64-bit benchmark series on AMD Opterons vs. Xeons. There IS apparently a problem with scaleablity in the EMT64 instruction set that Intel uses and/or their memory controller...and the performance in 64 bit mode shows that. Happened regardless of database (SQLServer and MySQL) tested with. b) Check out their review of the latest Sun Opteron servers. I'm in the middle of building a large grid server for a client, and if they weren't HP's largest customer, I'd be switching them to Sun right now...(hard to beat their current discounts though).
Earthan on 04 October 2005
great
great
Grunff on 05 October 2005
The only reason you guys need win2k3-64 is because of legacy of your code (win api). Windows is playing catching-up game when it comes to server performance, but thats just my 2c. As for hardware, we bought 12 HP Proliants with dual opterons so far, they are great machines. I assume they have something with2xdual core as well. I would advise against Intel for 64-bit, since my company got badly burned with the whole Itanium deal once upon the time (Intel never delivered). Not to mention that Intel's tech this time lags behind.
The only reason you guys need win2k3-64 is because of legacy of your code (win api). Windows is playing catching-up game when it comes to server performance, but thats just my 2c. As for hardware, we bought 12 HP Proliants with dual opterons so far, they are great machines. I assume they have something with2xdual core as well. I would advise against Intel for 64-bit, since my company got badly burned with the whole Itanium deal once upon the time (Intel never delivered). Not to mention that Intel's tech this time lags behind.
Crystal Clear on 08 October 2005
64 bit 4tw
64 bit 4tw
Will Basthard on 09 October 2005
To the uniformed... People that question MS SQL Server use instead of DB/2 or Oracle need to realize one thing. 1) Speed. Oracle NOR DB/2 cannot at this time provide the speed that Microsoft can for transactions of that CCP do. Yes Oracle and DB/2 are more stable,secure and portable - not to mention bulletproof - but they lack the ability to provide fast connectivity. Postgresql and MySQL can smoke them both and usually Microsoft. However, neither of those are supported by IBM for service contracts. Microsoft SQL server is the next best solution if you don't want to pay oracle or db/2 liscenses and recieve service contracts at the enterprise grade. my 0.02isk
To the uniformed... People that question MS SQL Server use instead of DB/2 or Oracle need to realize one thing. 1) Speed. Oracle NOR DB/2 cannot at this time provide the speed that Microsoft can for transactions of that CCP do. Yes Oracle and DB/2 are more stable,secure and portable - not to mention bulletproof - but they lack the ability to provide fast connectivity. Postgresql and MySQL can smoke them both and usually Microsoft. However, neither of those are supported by IBM for service contracts. Microsoft SQL server is the next best solution if you don't want to pay oracle or db/2 liscenses and recieve service contracts at the enterprise grade. my 0.02isk
Aphoxema G on 11 October 2005
It's so beautiful... remember, 32 times 4,294,967,297 equals 64 :3
It's so beautiful... remember, 32 times 4,294,967,297 equals 64 :3
Locust L on 12 October 2005
Why are you buying 'brand' computers instead of doing it by yourslef ?
Why are you buying 'brand' computers instead of doing it by yourslef ?
RebelWithoutAFridge on 12 October 2005
To state that 64bit will improve matters is a gross oversimplification. It is not simply a matter of swapping CPU's. The architecture of these machines differs significantly in many areas. The choice of OS is critical as well as the availability of 3rd party software support. Additionally the cost of re-training sytems support staff will be significant. I hope CCP are not making the usual mistake of thinking that changing the hardware will resolve their issues. Their record on capacity planning and high-availability infastructure support is not good. Presuming they do not have unlimited resources, one might wonder whether 'scale up' of this kind is indeed going to provide the benefits, that will result in a more stable environment and a better user experience. Often, addressing software design issues to obtain better performance will provide more long-term improvements. Admittedly it is not as sexy as a shiny new server. As always, "there are many different ways to skin a cat".
To state that 64bit will improve matters is a gross oversimplification. It is not simply a matter of swapping CPU's. The architecture of these machines differs significantly in many areas. The choice of OS is critical as well as the availability of 3rd party software support. Additionally the cost of re-training sytems support staff will be significant. I hope CCP are not making the usual mistake of thinking that changing the hardware will resolve their issues. Their record on capacity planning and high-availability infastructure support is not good. Presuming they do not have unlimited resources, one might wonder whether 'scale up' of this kind is indeed going to provide the benefits, that will result in a more stable environment and a better user experience. Often, addressing software design issues to obtain better performance will provide more long-term improvements. Admittedly it is not as sexy as a shiny new server. As always, "there are many different ways to skin a cat".
sliver 0xD on 14 October 2005
nice to read some people actualy know what the benefit is of 64bit and how to implement it :)
nice to read some people actualy know what the benefit is of 64bit and how to implement it :)
Baco Tell on 15 October 2005
CCP: Suggestions, if you want them. Look at IBM/HP Opteron Blade Servers for nodes. Standalone dual Opterons (of almost any speed) work quite well, too. Do network link aggregation between your node/app server layer and your database layer. Increase the amount of memory your SQL servers load into at startup. Memory means less disk reads. Normalize the DB and segregate the functional areas into different DBs to minimize contention. Hope this helps.
CCP: Suggestions, if you want them. Look at IBM/HP Opteron Blade Servers for nodes. Standalone dual Opterons (of almost any speed) work quite well, too. Do network link aggregation between your node/app server layer and your database layer. Increase the amount of memory your SQL servers load into at startup. Memory means less disk reads. Normalize the DB and segregate the functional areas into different DBs to minimize contention. Hope this helps.
Baco Tell on 15 October 2005
on the MS/SQL server vs. other SQL servers... MS does a great job for small distributions where you don't have dedicated DBAs or limited numbers of resources. The scale is not there tho. If you get beyond a certain sized database vs. user pool, you will have to split your DB into smaller DBs to maintain the performance. This is tricky b/c of the fundamental shift in your schema. I would offer another suggestion, Informix. Version 10 has inherited much of the tauted benefits of DB/2 yet maintains a lower price point. It also runs on several types and sizes of hardware. Anything from a 64 processor EV7/1300 HP AlphaServer GS1280 w/ Tru64 down to a single processor windows system. More 0.02 isk comments. Good luck CCP, I love playing your game!
on the MS/SQL server vs. other SQL servers... MS does a great job for small distributions where you don't have dedicated DBAs or limited numbers of resources. The scale is not there tho. If you get beyond a certain sized database vs. user pool, you will have to split your DB into smaller DBs to maintain the performance. This is tricky b/c of the fundamental shift in your schema. I would offer another suggestion, Informix. Version 10 has inherited much of the tauted benefits of DB/2 yet maintains a lower price point. It also runs on several types and sizes of hardware. Anything from a 64 processor EV7/1300 HP AlphaServer GS1280 w/ Tru64 down to a single processor windows system. More 0.02 isk comments. Good luck CCP, I love playing your game!
Sathar on 17 October 2005
*snort* good to see the general populace still believes the "*nix magic pixie dust" (just sprinkle on some Linux and it'll all get better!) myth. The real techies (and hint, that would be the developers here) have always known that you use whatever the right tool for the job is -- NOT whatever OS your religion preaches (which, for the masses these days, seems to be "anything other than Microsoft...") Sad really, how easily led people are. And they probably think that they're really rebels for using "l33t h@xx0r OS'es!" Sad.
*snort* good to see the general populace still believes the "*nix magic pixie dust" (just sprinkle on some Linux and it'll all get better!) myth. The real techies (and hint, that would be the developers here) have always known that you use whatever the right tool for the job is -- NOT whatever OS your religion preaches (which, for the masses these days, seems to be "anything other than Microsoft...") Sad really, how easily led people are. And they probably think that they're really rebels for using "l33t h@xx0r OS'es!" Sad.
Zorac Amarr on 21 October 2005
I just finished reliability testing six new Quad Dual-Core Opteron systems at work. They are based on the Tyan S4882 motherboard and are rock solid. For full memory performance get populate all four DIMM sockets per CPU with SINGLE RANK DIMMs. Then you get the full 400MHz data rate AND 128 bit interleaved access, which is about 2GB/sec memory to CPU bandwidth PER CPU :). Intel is way way behind at the moment, but they will have a lot to offer in about a year....
I just finished reliability testing six new Quad Dual-Core Opteron systems at work. They are based on the Tyan S4882 motherboard and are rock solid. For full memory performance get populate all four DIMM sockets per CPU with SINGLE RANK DIMMs. Then you get the full 400MHz data rate AND 128 bit interleaved access, which is about 2GB/sec memory to CPU bandwidth PER CPU :). Intel is way way behind at the moment, but they will have a lot to offer in about a year....
Omnious Prime on 02 November 2005
Intel isnt tht bad infact AMD has had alot more problems over the years, intel is a stable reliable system and i am behind it all the way and YAY for 64 bit! P.S Amarr Rule over all other slave scum!
Intel isnt tht bad infact AMD has had alot more problems over the years, intel is a stable reliable system and i am behind it all the way and YAY for 64 bit! P.S Amarr Rule over all other slave scum!
Alex Striker on 03 November 2005
Ha. Wait for the new version of Windows server for the new Jet database.
Ha. Wait for the new version of Windows server for the new Jet database.
lexxx on 09 November 2005
seems intresting linux from the start would of probly been better but there are not alot of linux programmers and some of the better software can only run on windows (that supports what eve does and plug in pray support) 64 bit allso would of been better from the start but all will be good once eve is 64bit (server) it get better soon clen some stuff up Note ONLY the K7 chips had some heat problems K8 (754 939 640) only have heat problems when you do an high overclock (stock heat sink can cool it 2x over) amd cpus are more portable like when the X2 came out what did 90% of the customers that had mobos that are more then 6 months old (939)"buy an new mobo?" no update there bios and the chip works (same thing with the optrons but not seen much chat on that) dual core optrons mite be the best way (2 cpus in each blade 4 cores solve any cpu problems unless its not muti threaded the eve server code then that need to be re witten as well) but intel chips from what i have heard are better at DB stuff as it can fill the P4 32 pipes but i sure 2 dual core optrons should even the math out an little intel dual core (aka the guled 2xP4 chip) nope need an new mobo that mite blow when under load (new mobos are ok just intel changed the specs and ment needed more power that the mobos could not supply)
seems intresting linux from the start would of probly been better but there are not alot of linux programmers and some of the better software can only run on windows (that supports what eve does and plug in pray support) 64 bit allso would of been better from the start but all will be good once eve is 64bit (server) it get better soon clen some stuff up Note ONLY the K7 chips had some heat problems K8 (754 939 640) only have heat problems when you do an high overclock (stock heat sink can cool it 2x over) amd cpus are more portable like when the X2 came out what did 90% of the customers that had mobos that are more then 6 months old (939)"buy an new mobo?" no update there bios and the chip works (same thing with the optrons but not seen much chat on that) dual core optrons mite be the best way (2 cpus in each blade 4 cores solve any cpu problems unless its not muti threaded the eve server code then that need to be re witten as well) but intel chips from what i have heard are better at DB stuff as it can fill the P4 32 pipes but i sure 2 dual core optrons should even the math out an little intel dual core (aka the guled 2xP4 chip) nope need an new mobo that mite blow when under load (new mobos are ok just intel changed the specs and ment needed more power that the mobos could not supply)
Bob Niac on 14 November 2005
AMD true dual core 4tw!
AMD true dual core 4tw!
Punkstasis on 21 November 2005
lol....eve client uses 100% cpu because it is built to do so to pump out as much frames per second as possible. btw...they are talking about a 64 bit server, has nothing to do with the 32 bit client your going to have. from my experiences amd cpu's have always had better faster busses and more cache sure they run hot, so does intel, but they sell..uh...fans intel better at db...lol 800 mhz buss vs 2ghz buss?....800 mhz is better? stop reading intels promotional website and stick with the numbers a server needs buss, whats athlon have, 2ghz buss vs intels 800mhz btw, if they are buying new servers, i bet they planned on those servers coming with motherboards, unless they shop in the ghetto theses cpu's have been out for some time and are making alot of people happy, none of these 64 bit cpu's are "experimental only" ...lol, they work, as a matter of fact, all of my house pc's are 64 bit, wouldnt go back for anything
lol....eve client uses 100% cpu because it is built to do so to pump out as much frames per second as possible. btw...they are talking about a 64 bit server, has nothing to do with the 32 bit client your going to have. from my experiences amd cpu's have always had better faster busses and more cache sure they run hot, so does intel, but they sell..uh...fans intel better at db...lol 800 mhz buss vs 2ghz buss?....800 mhz is better? stop reading intels promotional website and stick with the numbers a server needs buss, whats athlon have, 2ghz buss vs intels 800mhz btw, if they are buying new servers, i bet they planned on those servers coming with motherboards, unless they shop in the ghetto theses cpu's have been out for some time and are making alot of people happy, none of these 64 bit cpu's are "experimental only" ...lol, they work, as a matter of fact, all of my house pc's are 64 bit, wouldnt go back for anything
Punkstasis on 21 November 2005
yes, when you port to 64 from 32 bit, you have to recompile the program, make a few code changes, basically rewrite some of it, to reflect the fact that pointers have the size of 8 bytes and no longer 4 bytes as far as a client goes, i dont think most people have a 64 bit pc to run a 64 bit client alot do, but some people are (no offense) like little fuzzy bunnies when it comes to technology, and may use the same 32 bit machine for years
yes, when you port to 64 from 32 bit, you have to recompile the program, make a few code changes, basically rewrite some of it, to reflect the fact that pointers have the size of 8 bytes and no longer 4 bytes as far as a client goes, i dont think most people have a 64 bit pc to run a 64 bit client alot do, but some people are (no offense) like little fuzzy bunnies when it comes to technology, and may use the same 32 bit machine for years
Punkstasis on 21 November 2005
btw, 32 bit apps only run on wow on intel cpu's because athlon 64's have a built in 32 bit cpu that allows 32 bit apps to run on hardware thats why athlon 64's can even run 32 bit windows as far as whether or not it runs on wow, thats not cpp's call, all 32 bit apps run on wow on 64 bit windows unless you have a cpu like athlon 64 that has harware support for x86(32 bit apps) guess what, even with dual cores eve will use 100% cpu because, its made to run full throtle just like all other games to get the highest frames per second. for games taking 100% of the cpu is considered a good thing, unless you like laggy games from my experiences droppiing cpu from 100 to 50% drops frame rates by as much as 70%
btw, 32 bit apps only run on wow on intel cpu's because athlon 64's have a built in 32 bit cpu that allows 32 bit apps to run on hardware thats why athlon 64's can even run 32 bit windows as far as whether or not it runs on wow, thats not cpp's call, all 32 bit apps run on wow on 64 bit windows unless you have a cpu like athlon 64 that has harware support for x86(32 bit apps) guess what, even with dual cores eve will use 100% cpu because, its made to run full throtle just like all other games to get the highest frames per second. for games taking 100% of the cpu is considered a good thing, unless you like laggy games from my experiences droppiing cpu from 100 to 50% drops frame rates by as much as 70%
Tsual on 18 December 2005
Oh shit I understood that blog and the comments, does that mean I'm a nerd?
Oh shit I understood that blog and the comments, does that mean I'm a nerd?
Zzazzt on 18 December 2005
Pork - if my current tests are anything to go by (have just built a high-end games rig around an A64 x2 4400+), you'll need to be careful to test lots of different system boards. Some AMD chipsets (particularly nForce4 SLI x16) have difficulty recognising 4gb of memory on the north bridge. I've heard that Intel chipsets (spit) have better memory management atm than their competitors. I believe the issues are around the PCI-E memory bus when there's more than 20 lanes to manage, however, so it's more a case of getting a bios revision that handles high bandwidth properly. You probably already knew that, but hey - thought I'd chip in ;)
Pork - if my current tests are anything to go by (have just built a high-end games rig around an A64 x2 4400+), you'll need to be careful to test lots of different system boards. Some AMD chipsets (particularly nForce4 SLI x16) have difficulty recognising 4gb of memory on the north bridge. I've heard that Intel chipsets (spit) have better memory management atm than their competitors. I believe the issues are around the PCI-E memory bus when there's more than 20 lanes to manage, however, so it's more a case of getting a bios revision that handles high bandwidth properly. You probably already knew that, but hey - thought I'd chip in ;)
Golerre Evraun on 22 December 2005
hey, why don't you try...
...or you could go out, get a few different models and try to see how eve will run on it, oh wait that's the plan isn't it.
oh and use another os because winbl......
hey, have you guys liked the game so far?
if so than i guess the operating system isn't really all that bad.
hey, why don't you try
vixit on 30 December 2005
will there be a 64bit client in the future? I hope so good luck
will there be a 64bit client in the future? I hope so good luck
Cor'len on 08 January 2006
Zazzt: CCP ain't building the servers themselves. They're buying IBM blade servers, which *don't* use nVidia chipsets. ;)
Further commenting has been disabled. If you want to discuss this post then head on to the forums Zazzt: CCP ain't building the servers themselves. They're buying IBM blade servers, which *don't* use nVidia chipsets. ;)

























